Reverse Bifurcation

Reverse bifurcation is a way of splitting a trial so that the jury decides damages first, assuming the defendant is liable, and then decides liability only if needed. It has been used in some asbestos dockets to encourage settlement once the value of a case is known.

Origin

Courts have long had power to split trials into phases for convenience and efficiency. Reverse bifurcation was developed in some high-volume asbestos dockets in the 1980s and 1990s, where the main dispute in many cases was what the claim was worth rather than whether asbestos caused the disease.

Significance in Asbestos Context

In an ordinary trial, the jury hears about the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injuries together. In a reverse-bifurcated trial, the first phase focuses on the plaintiff's disease, its cause, and damages; once a dollar figure is known, defendants often settle rather than try liability. That can save time in crowded dockets. Plaintiffs' lawyers have mixed views: it can speed resolution, but the jury in the damages phase does not hear evidence of what defendants knew, which can affect awards. Defendants have also objected in some cases that it presumes liability. Whether a court uses it, and whether punitive damages are tried separately, depends on the jurisdiction and the judge.

Example Sentence

In the reverse-bifurcated trial, the jury first awarded $4 million in compensatory damages, and the remaining defendants settled before the liability phase began.

Related Terms

Consolidation, Bellwether Trial, Compensatory Damages, Punitive Damages, Jury Instruction, Trial Preference

Notes

• Ask your lawyer how trials are structured in the court where your case is pending.
• Settlements often happen just before or during trial, even after months without movement.